Author: Graham Laight
Date: 23:54:04 11/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2000 at 19:12:08, Amir Ban wrote:
>On November 17, 2000 at 18:08:46, Graham Laight wrote:
>
>>On November 17, 2000 at 13:02:04, Amir Ban wrote:
>>
>>>You are missing the point that there do not really exist two separate
>>>approaches. The term "bean counter" (as used in this thread, it originally meant
>>>something else) is derogratory. The term "knowledge based" is mostly hype.
>>>
>>>Amir
>>
>>There are many things that we classify with fuzzy boundaries - but classify them
>>we do.
>>
>>If the term "bean counter" is derogatory, we can use something else (e.g.
>>"fast").
>>
>>"Fast" could be classified in terms of depth, NPS and the like.
>>
>>"Knowledgable" could be classified in terms of the number of discrete pieces of
>>knowledge a program uses (which I think is a better measure than lines of code).
>>
>
>Notice that you are now assuming that "knowledge" and "fast" are opposites. How
>do you know this ? If there's anything I said in this thread, it's that this is
>not true.
Actually, I didn't mean to imply that.
There's probably more correlation between speed and knowledge than there is
between, say, board colour and playing strength - but you're certainly not going
to get a correlation of 1.
>The notion of gauging knowledge by size of evaluation function or pieces of
>knowledge is even sillier than gauging strength by node count.
I don't agree. In the case of Crafty's evaluate.c program, because it is written
so clearly, I think one can count the discrete pieces of knowledge with
confidence.
-g
>Amir
>
>
>>People often dislike being classified with fuzzy boundaries - but if so, they
>>would be hippocritical if they then classified other people in this way ("old
>>man", "young man", "boy", "genius", "idiot" etc).
>>
>>-g
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.